An Interview Turned to a Chat

Bryan Cranston is an actor, so he has an excuse. But what is Chris Wallace's excuse?

On Sunday night's "Who's Talking to Chris Wallace?" the host asked Bryan Cranston "You got into a tussle recently with Bill Maher about critical race theory and 'wokeness'. When you look at the political discourse today and the role that media plays in it, what do you think?" Cranston replied

It's difficult to try to find truly unbiased reporting, news that really is straight shooters. You know, this conversation I had with Bill, we're talking about critical race theory and I think it's imperative that it's taught, that we look at our history much the same, I think that Germany has looked at their history, involvement in the wars, one and two, and embrace it. This is where we went wrong, this is how it went wrong. 

When I see the Make America Great Again, my comment is "do you accept that could possibly be construed as a racist remark?" And most people- a lot of people- go "how could that be racist? Make America great again?"  I said "so just ask yourself, from an African American experience, "when was it ever great in America for the African American? When was it great? So if you're making it great again, it's not including them.

 

Wallace should have asked Cranston whether America is great- even "exceptional"- despite its brutal treatment of African-Americans or if the oppression of a large minority of American citizens precludes it from being considered exceptional. It's a fundamental question upon which proponents (think Joe Scarborough) of the first view are invariably given a pass.

More obviously is Wallace's failure to pursue clarification of the first and third statements Cranston made. The actor claimed "it's difficult to try to find truly unbiased reporting." Well, no, it's not, given that media outlets such as The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal (on the news side), and a few others still exist. Whether Cranston was referring to them- a hard-right trope- or to cable news networks was left unexplored. If the actor was referring to cable news, it would have been edifying to hear whether he was thinking of Fox News, which reportedly promoted election denialism while knowing it was fictitious, or CNN and MSNBC. It's important.

Still, that was not Wallace's most serious oversight. Cranston maintained 

I think it's imperative that (CRT) be taught, that we look at our history much the same, I think, that Germany has looked at their history, involvement in the wars, one and two, and embrace it. 

Beside invading the U.S.S.R.,  the Third Reich invaded and occupied Poland, Denmark, Norway, Belgium, Netherlands, Luxembourg, France, Yugoslavia, and Greece. The Nazi regime persecuted Jehovah's Witnesses, Roma (Gypsies), homosexuals, disabled individuals, and others- including blacks, many of whom were sterilized or put into concentration camps. 

And Jews, six million or so who were exterminated because Adolph Hitler erroneously believed they constituted a separate race and unworthy (as he believed of others) to co-exist with the Aryan super race. For those who are confused by abuse of the term "genocide:" that was genocide.

Yet, our history and that of World War II-era Germany are analogous, according to Bryan Cranston, who believes that his superior understanding of American history must be taught to all Americans. Nonetheless, Cranston can be dismissed as being merely ignorant, though as an actor, it might have been an effort to impress fans with a false impression of open-mindedness.  

Chris Wallace, however, is a well-paid, long-time journalist, and Jewish, which can be expected to make him slightly more alert to comparisons with Nazi Germany.  A veteran of ABC News, Fox News, and now CNN, he has in the past proven to be a fairly skilled interviewer with the leverage of a respected veteran. 

Yet, confronted with two highly questionable remarks as well as support for the controversial Critical Race Theory, Wallace pivoted to asking Cranston about "Breaking Bad."  If Wallace freely chose to discuss entertainment rather than the nation's racial past, it was his choice. If his bosses at CNN or Warner Bros. Discovery have set that priority, it's a case of a cable news heavyweight cheating his audience.

Share |

Fox News' Chris Wallace conducted with Donald Trump on Sunday a wide-ranging interview soliciting responses so Trumpian that CNN's Chris Cillizza was able to compile what CNN referred to as the "55 most shocking lines" of the President.

Cillizza's list was comprehensive. However, the 4:19 summary in the Washington Post clip below omitted what was probably the most dangerous remark made by the President.

Also emphasized is the series of questions about the novel coronavirus and, taken as a whole, the idea that Donald Trump is pleased with the great number of deaths should gain currency.  Asked about insufficient testing, the President (at 6:30 of the video of the full interview) admitted "iIn a way we're creating trouble" before catching himself and going to his "fake news" standby.

Attention has been paid to Trump refusing to commit himself to accepting the results of the 2020 election. However, given that he has not accepted the results of an election he won, the likelihood of him going quietly if Joe Biden beats him was always slim. However, the Intercept's Amanda Holpuch noted

Trump also made the astounding claim that in two weeks’ time, he will sign a new healthcare plan.

On the campaign trail in 2016, he promised to overturn the Affordable Care Act, commonly known as Obamacare, which provides health insurance to those who cannot otherwise afford it. An effort to do so in Congress failed. Late last month – during a pandemic – the White House wrote a brief in support of a lawsuit seeking to bring the ACA down.

Wallace pointed out that in three years, Trump has not unveiled his promised replacement.

Trump responded: “We’re signing a healthcare plan within two weeks, a full and complete healthcare plan that the supreme court decision on DACA [an immigration decision which went against the administration] gave me the right to do.

“So we’re going to solve – we’re going to sign an immigration plan, a healthcare plan, and various other plans. And nobody will have done what I’m doing in the next four weeks.”

"Astounding" it is. Vox's Aaron Rupar:

Don’t sleep on Trump proclaiming (falsely) that a recent Supreme Court decision gives him the power to decree laws without congressional approval https://t.co/iCvHw9BNoE

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) July 19, 2020

Charlie Pierce caught the Axios report that John

 Yoo detailed the theory in a National Review article, spotted atop Trump’s desk in the Oval Office, which argues that the Supreme Court's 5-4 DACA ruling last month "makes it easy for presidents to violate the law. The president has brought up the article with key advisers, two Trump administration officials tell Axios. Yoo writes that the ruling, and actions by President Obama, pave the way for Trump to implement policies that Congress won’t. Some could remain in force for years even if he loses re-election. 

Yoo — who next week will be out with a new book, "Defender in Chief," on Trump's use of presidential power — tells Axios that he has met virtually with White House officials about the implications of the ruling. What's next: The first test could come imminently. Trump has said he is about to unveil a "very major" immigration policy via executive order, which he says the Supreme Court gave him the power to do.

It goes back further, to then-Attorney General William Barr's ability to convince President George H. Bush to pardon everybody in the Iran-Contra scandal who could have implicated President Bush. They all relied on "a lushly funded network of conservative organizations to finance the scholarship that brought (Supreme Court Justice Antonin) Scalia’s opinion to political life."

What Pierce understandably doesn’t concede is the role President Obama’s Executive Order itself had in prompting the court case in which President Trump now finds solace and his Justice Department will use to defend any move Trump makes unilaterally on health care or immigration…. or anything else. Obama’s Executive Order, albeit compassionate, was always of dubious legality extended on behalf of individuals who (as children) were brought to this country illegally and which might come back to smack immigrants and health care consumers in the…. well, you know.

It would be ironic were an action of President Obama, so loathed by the current President, were successfully leveraged to extend the reach of the chief executive into areas which would prove very damaging to the nation. But that is the threat made by Donald Trump when questioned by Chris Wallace, and a reminder that if things are bad now, they could get much worse.

Share |

Mainstream Wannabe

"Conservative presidents,"argued  host of GOP News Sunday Chris Wallace, "are going to nominate conservative jusges and liberal presidents are going to nominate liberal judges, as long as they are in the judicial mainstream. Isn't that what an election is for?"

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer countered

Well, both The New York Times and Washington Post hired independent experts to rate where Gorsuch would be. The Times said he would be to the right of every judge but Thomas, the most conservative judge we’ve had in history, and The Post analysis said he’d be to the right of that. So, this is not a mainstream judge.

Schumer pointed out also

The average middle-class person, the only recourse they have is the courts. Gorsuch repeatedly on issue after issue has been far to the right. In one case, he even went against what Thomas and Alito said on education of special kids.





Schumer realizes

The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday rejected legal reasoning used by President Donald Trump's high court nominee Neil Gorsuch in his role as an appellate judge, ruling in favor of an autistic student who said he was denied an adequate education.

The 8-0 ruling, authored by conservative Chief Justice John Roberts, was issued at the same time Gorsuch was facing questions during his Senate confirmation hearing about a 2008 case in which he ruled against an autistic child who sought a public education more tailored to his needs.

The Supreme Court ruled that public schools must offer disabled students a special educational program sufficiently ambitious to ensure they make progress.

Democrats called the Supreme Court ruling a rebuke of the Republican president's nominee and suggested Gorsuch was not a mainstream judge.

That's quite a judicial mainstream, in which Judge Gorsuch's view is validated by exactly zero of eight judges.

Nonetheless, that wasn't the only preposterous argument made in favor of Justice Gorsuch, deftly handled by Rhode Island Senator Sheldon Whitehouse during confirmation hearings (below). Wallace contended also

Conservative presidents are going to nominate conservative judges and liberal presidents are going to nominate liberal judges, as long as they are in the judicial mainstream. Isn't that what an election is for?

It's hardly likely that the election was used by voters to decide upon a Supreme Court nominee, given that the high court was not a major election issue.  Additionally, if that is "what an election is for," we need to consider the following numbers:  Evan McMullin, .53%; Dr. Jill Stein, 1.06%; Gary Jonson, 3.2%; Donald Trump, 45.94%; Hillary Clinton, 48.03%.

If that is what "an election is for," a plurality of voters opted for the vision and values of Hillary Clinton, not those of Donald Trump. But of course, Americans do not vote for a Supreme Court Justice when they vote for President.  Just ask Merrick Garland.






Share |

Not Appreciative


Some people- and I'm not talking about Barack Obama- just won't be satisfied.  On Thursday, the President announced "Because Democrats and responsible Republicans came together, the first government shutdown in 17 years is now over."

The President downplayed the political advantage gained by his party in the crisis, warning "let's be clear: There are no winners here."  Both sides, he maintained, were to blame:   "And of course, we know that the American people's frustration with what goes on in this town has never been higher. That's not a surprise that the American people are completely fed up with Washington."  For emphasis, he later added "understand that how business is done in this town has to change."

For the President, it was not Republicans nor the GOP-controlled House to blame because "there's a lot of noise out there, and the pressure from the extremes..."   In that vein, he cautioned "all of us (to) stop focusing on the lobbyists and the bloggers and the talking heads on radio and the professional activists who profit from conflict."

Nor was it just rhetoric.  The President endorsed a prime objective of the GOP when there is a Democratic president, urging "a balanced approach to a responsible budget, a budget that grows our economy faster and shrinks our long-term deficits further."   And he backed the longtime Republican aim to imperil vulnerable elderly people, stressing "the long-term obligations that we have around things like Medicare and Social Security" to "make sure those are here for future generations."  Destroying the village in order to save it:  always a winning formula.

President Obama extended the olive branch (for the 327 time) to the Party which only a few days earlier was threatening to wreck the nation's economy.  The Democratic president, nonetheless, blamed "Washinggon (and) this town (and) extremists," whomever they might be.  And Republican members of Congress responded in typical fashion.

President Obama put in a plug for comprehensive immigration reform in his speech, and Representative Raul Labrador (R-ID) barked "I think it would be crazy for the House leadership to enter into negotiations with him.  He's trying to destroy the Republican Party, not to get good policies. I don't see how he would in good faith negotiate with us on immigration."

Florida Senator Marco Rubio, hailed by the mainstream media as a "moderate Republican" before he went into hiding on immigration reform and then on the government shutdown/debt crisis, was asked on Fox News Sunday about Laborador's claim and, given a chance to express caution, instead remarked

What Congressman Labrador is addressing is something that I hear from opponents of our efforts all the time and I think that's a valid point, and that is this: you have a government and a White House that consistently ignored the law and how to apply it. Look at the health care law. The law is on the books, they decide which parts of it to apply and which parts not to apply. They issue their own waivers without any congressional oversight.

The question, though, had been about immigration reform and when Chris Wallace pressed him on that, Rubio contended

Now, this notion that they're going to get in a room and negotiate a deal with the president on immigration is much more difficult to do for two reasons.  Number one, because of the way that president (sic) has behaved towards his opponents over the last few weeks, as well as the White House and the things that they've said and done. And number two, because of what I outlined to you.

So, I certainly think that immigration reform is a lot harder to achieve today and it was just three weeks ago because of what's happened here.

That is, in technical terms, poppycock. To be generous to Obama, perhaps Rubio is reluctant to negotiate with the President because the GOP appears to have had their posteriors realigned in the recent negotiations over shutting down government and raising the debt limit. But even there, Republicans merely lost a battle in a war they're winning (over budgetary priorities).   Instead, the Florida senator is probably playing a double game, shifting from an apparent supporter of immigration reform to an opponent, and back, as circumstances dictate.

The biggest danger, though, remains that the GOP someday will stop opposing everything Obama and realize that, as someone who wants to cut Medicare and Social Security and prioritize debt reduction over job creation, he only has their interests at heart.




Share |

Roadkill Ryan


Allowed an opportunity by Morning Joe host Joe Scarborough, Mika Brzezinski noted of Representative Paul Ryan, Vice President Biden "ate him for dinner, then spit him out on the table."

Grudgingly, much of the mainstream media is acknowledging that if it was to be assessed "on points," the vice-presidential debate last night was won by Joe Biden.  Yes, on points: and in Super Bowl 20 (1986) in New Orleans, the Chicago Bears won "on points," 46-10; in Super Bowl 35 fifteen years later (but you knew that), the Baltimore Ravens beat the New York Giants (slim solace for a Philadelphia Eagles fan), 34-7.     The front-page of the venerable The Philadelphia Inquirer (whose editorial board skews Democratic) was not atypical with its headline last Thursday "Romney Puts Heat on Obama" and today, "Biden, Ryan spur on issues."

As Salon's Joan Walsh noted, "the pearl-clutchers might have the vapors" as "pundits squabbled about Biden’s delivery, and Fox’s Chris Wallace declared 'I’ve never seen a candidate as disrespectful as Biden.'"   Chris might want to watch the face-offs on some of the Sunday morning news talks shows, perhaps even his own, at which time he might notice politicians chuckling at the statements of the guy from the other party (not if "the other guy" is a woman, however; that would be considered disrespectful).

Despite being the deer caught in the headlights, Ryan did try, at one point inserting his rehearsed line "I think the vice president very well knows that sometimes the words don't come out of your mouth the right way."  But Biden immediately responded "But I always say what I mean.  And so does Romney."

That hits at a major electoral strength of the Republican- that he really, couldn't mean all those extreme, radical things he has said.   Buzz Bissinger, author of Friday Night Lights, A Prayer for the City, and described here (in an otherwise magnificent take-down) as "the brilliant, narrative journalist," recently endorsed Romney.  He reasoned "I believe that Romney's move to the center is not yet another flip-flop sleight of hand, perhaps naively.  I believe he will send to the political Guantanamo those dirty old white men of the party ready to bomb Iran."  

Those sleights-of-hand are proving convenient for Romney, and Slate's Dave Weigel explains Bissinger is "a low information voter who happens to be extraordinarily good at writing.  He saw Romney in the debate, and saw Obama, and said 'Jesus, really, that's the president right now?' There are millions of people like Bissinger."

(Bissinger, entertaining but not very informative, describes himself as "the afternoon talk show host for CBS WPHT-AM in Philadelphia."  He is, in fact, co-host of "The Buzz Bissinger Show with Steve Martorano" from 3:00 p.m.-7:00 p.m.   Michael Smerconish, who has a periodic gig substituting for Chris Matthews on Hardball, holds down the 12:00-3:00 p.m. slot on WPHT and is syndicated nationally.  He is "the" afternoon talk show host on the station.)

In part, Democrats, or liberal pundits, have themselves to blame.    Though most Republicans are reacting to Ryan's failure in much the same way as Wallace of GOP TV, Obama partisans responded to the President's failure a week earlier by publicly panicking while admitting that it would bolster Romney's campaign.   It might not be surprising, then, that there are only a few mainstream journalists, such as Brzezinski and Chuck Todd (who commented "this was Joe Biden's debate; Paul Ryan was at it"), who are acknowledging what they saw.  

Meanwhile, more are bending over backwards to avoid offending the GOP. Otherwise, they might otherwise be frozen out by Republicans, as trade associations and corporate lobbyists were by Tom DeLay as a tactic of his K Street Project.   Or they might be subjected to intimidation, as Mitt Romney effectively displayed against Jim Lehrer in the first debate.  Hopefully, the public recognized, as journalism professor Allan Schroeder wrote at CNN's site, "For much of the debate, the super-charged veep kept his opponent in a defensive crouch.  At times it looked as if Ryan was afraid Biden might ground him and take away the car keys."






Share |

Quick-Thinking, Deluded Candidate


In one segment of her interview with Chris Wallace on GOP News Sunday, Michele Bachman managed to be ludicrous, dishonest, and cowardly. She is, in short, a skilled Republican politician. Here she is fielding questions (transcript of discussion, here) from the host on Medicare:


BACHMANN: What I want to do is to make sure that we fully repeal Obamacare. This will be one of the largest spending initiatives we will ever see in our country. And also, it will take away choice from the American people. It will hurt senior citizens, because Obama took away $500 billion, as you say, from Medicare and will transfer it younger people in Obamacare. Even worse, the Congressional Budget Office is saying ill lose 800,000 jobs with Obamacare. When we're in a situation now where we have massive job loss, this is not what we want to do with Obamacare.



WALLACE: But I want to ask about the Medicare part of it, because as you just said, it took away -- would take away almost half a trillion dollars, $500 billion, from Medicare, for a new entitlement. But you voted for the Paul Ryan House budget, which also take away almost half a trillion dollars from Medicare.



BACHMANN: Well, what we -- what we need to do is revise and change what we're doing in Washington, D.C. We do need to have changes in the budget. We do need to have changes in spending. But the one thing we know about Obamacare, it will be a brand new bureaucracy, larger than anything we've ever seen before in Washington. And we simply can't afford it. What seniors --



WALLACE: But if I may, I understand all that part of it. But specifically on Medicare, Obamacare would take away half a trillion dollars from Medicare. The Ryan budget which you voted for would take away half a trillion dollars for Medicare.



BACHMANN: Well, let's be clear. The Ryan budget is really the 55 and under plan. People need to recognize --



WALLACE: No, no, no. But



BACHMANN: -- no one over 55 will be touched.



WALLACE: No, no. But it would take away -- that's for the voucher plan. But it would take away --



BACHMANN: It's not a voucher plan.



WALLACE: We can talk about that. I mean, it's a premium support and a lot of people say that's the same thing.



BACHMANN: But it's not.



WALLACE: The point is, though, that it's taking half a trillion dollars away in the next decade for people over 55.



BACHMANN: For -- what the Ryan plan is trying to do is present a budget framework. It's important for people to recognize it's not legislation.



WALLACE: It's a legislation, as intended.



BACHMANN: It's a budget framework. And this is -- this is a starting point for us to have a discussion. I have put an asterisk, I voted for the plan because this is right, we need to get to our house in order with our fiscal spending. But my asterisk is, we have to make sure going forward with senior citizens, that we're focusing on a higher quality of life, dealing with cures for instance for senior citizens.

Ludicrous: Representative Bachmann is exorcised that the Affordable Care Act cuts $500 billion from Medicare. It does, as everyone in the US Congress is aware, reduce the cost of Medicare (which, except when discussing the Obama health care plan, is an object of enthusiasm for Republicans) by reducing the payments given to providers in the (private) Medicare Advantage Program. Meanwhile, Bachmann favors the Ryan plan, which saves federal revenues by, specifically and solely, increasing individual costs for the (elderly) consumer. And rescinds the Medicare program, which Bachmann pretends to support.

Dishonest: No, the Ryan budget is not the 55 and under plan. It's the plan for elderly individuals. It affects only those currently under 55 but will affect them only when older. Consider: the state of Transylvania, in which individuals 17 and older are eligible to drive, this year lowers its speed limit on its state highways from 65 to 55, to take effect on June 26, 2015. Do Transylvania officials announce its laws apply to persons 13 and younger? If so, a lot of 13, 12, 11, and 10 year olds will jump for joy- they've just been handed a driver's license! No, the law will be thought to apply only to the 17+ set, the only group that drives. Announcing that a health care scheme for the elderly applies only to the 55 and under crowd is an attempt to decouple government health care from the idea that it services the elderly. Young and middle-aged people don't get Medicare- hence, insisting that the Ryan plan applies only to those under 55 implies that these individuals are losing, and will lose, nothing they don't already have.

Additionally, the elderly health care plan in the House-approved budget is a voucher plan- not "premium support." Take it from the one of the guys, Hall of Famer* Henry Aaron, who devised the original premium support plan (emphasis that of CAP's Igor Volsky):

The defining attribute of the plans that Reischauer and I christened “premium support” was that the amount of support was to be indexed to average health care costs, not, as in voucher plans, to a price index or per person income. If savings were to result from the exercise of consumer choice and market discipline, that would be well and good, we argued. But savings should not come from erosion of the adequacy of support resulting from linking the payment to a slowly growing index. This difference is crucial. Voucher plans are virtually guaranteed to become increasingly inadequate; premium support plans will not.

Courageous: Time to put on your man-pants, Michele, as one of your fellow Republicans would put it. She contends "what the Ryan plan is trying to do is present a budget framework. It's important for people to recognize it's not legislation." The budget resolution is a is a blueprint for spending and budget resolution and was defeated- as expected- in the Senate. But given how "serious" the proposal, and how "bold" Ryan, was deemed by the media and the GOP, it seems a little odd and weak-kneed now to try to claim that it really didn't count. It was only to prompt discussion, don't you know. Just a thought, nothing else.

New to the race, Michele Bachmann is a little bit of a novelty, and still enjoying a honeymoon period with the media, though Chris Wallace did a professional job interviewing her. Bachmann is determined and skilled, and will need every bit of those attributes when the real questions begin.


* obviously, not this Henry Aaron.

As Performance, Passable

Sarah Palin deserves credit.

She gave a politically savvy answer when Chris Wallace asked her on Fox News Sunday "Should the rule "don't ask -- don't tell" for the Military be revealed?" (Note: I believe Matthews said "reversed" or "rescinded"- and if not, certainly meant to.) Palin shrewdly responded

I don't think so right now. I'm surprised that the President spent that on his State of the Union speech when he only spent about nine percent of his time in the State of the Union on national security issues. And I say that because there are other things to be worried about right now with the Military.

I think that's kind of on the back burner. It's sufficient for now.

To put so much time and effort and politics into it, unnecessary.

Palin could not have supported rescission of "don't ask, don't tell" without engendering significant controversy. However, she qualified her answer: not "right now;" "other things to be worried about:" "kind of on the back burner;" unnecessary "to put so much time and effort and politics into it."

Translation: I'm against it until it becomes politically advantageous to modify my position. Flexibility in this case is a virtue, if a little disingenous.

Flexibility is one thing. Charging the President of the United States with disregarding the interests of the American people is something else. This exchange got a lot of attention, but not enough:

WALLACE: I know that three years is an eternity in politics. But how hard do you think President Obama will be to defeat in 2012?

PALIN: It depends on a few things. Say he played, and I got this from Buchanan, reading one of his columns the other day. Say he played the war card. Say he decided to declare war on Iran, or decided to really come out and do whatever he could to support Israel, which I would like him to do. But that changes the dynamics in what we can assume is going to happen between now and three years. Because I think if the election were today, I do not think Obama would be re-elected.

But three years from now things could change if on the national security threat --

WALLACE: You're not suggesting that he would cynically play the war card.

It was good of Wallace to ask Palin "you're not suggesting that he would cynically play the war card," after she did suggest that he would cynically play the war card. Unfortunately, the FOX News host failed to follow up when Palin responded

I'm not suggesting that. I'm saying, if he did, things would dramatically change if he decided to toughen up and do all that he can to secure our nation and our allies. I think people would perhaps shift their thinking a little bit and decide, well, maybe he's tougher than we think he is today. And there wouldn't be as much passion to make sure that he doesn't serve another four years --

She stated "I'm not suggesting that"- and then did suggest just that: "if he did...." The proper answer, if there were anything proper about Sarah Palin, "no, I'm not." Then she could have proposed such an action. Or not.

All in all, though, the former governor got through an interview, albeit with one so friendly that it employs her, nearly unscathed. And without peeking at anything which might have been written on her palm.

Palin Defends Limbaugh

Sometimes with Sarah Palin you say: She didn't just say that, did she?

Interviewed by Chris Wallace on GOP News Sunday, the former Governor explained

Name calling by anyone -- I teach this to my children, you teach it to your children and your grandchildren, too. Name calling by anyone, it's just unnecessary. It just wastes time.
Let's speak to the issues and --

As Bush 41, characteristically avoiding pronouns, would have put it- good idea, can't disagree with any of it.

There would be only one problem. In her response immediately prior to that, when Wallace referred to Limbaugh saying "I mean, these people, these liberal activists are quote, kooks." Should Rush Limbaugh apologize?" And Sarah Palin- honest- replied

They are kooks, so I agree with Rush Limbaugh.

No, we wouldn't want to engage in any name calling- unless the name is "kooks" and the people so described aren't right-wing.

This would be startling, were it not Sarah Palin. The "kooks" remark, in which Mrs. Palin did not engage in name-calling, came as Wallace asked whether Rush Limbaugh should apologize for what the former referred to as "the R word."

After calling people she disagrees with "kooks," Palin claimed "Rush Limbaugh was using satire to bring attention to what this politically correct --" It is less likely Limbaugh was using satire than, say, he was experiencing unnatural excitement at repeating the reportedly offensive term. He exclaimed:

We didn't do anything about it, you F-ing retards." I think the big news is the crack-up going on. But our politically correct society is acting like some giant insult's taken place by calling a bunch of people who are "retards," "retards." I mean these people, these liberal activists are kooks. They are Looney Tunes. I'm not going to apologize for it. I'm just quoting Emanuel. It's in the news. I think the big news is that he's out there calling Obama's number one supporters "F-ing retards

That would be four times using the "R" word; nothing pithy, wry, ironic, subtle, or vaguely satiric about it. The tipoff: Rush slammed "our politically correct society," thereby hinting he believes there is absolutely nothing wrong with the term- only with the people who were the object of Emanuel's attack.

Palin went on to assert "I didn't hear Rush Limbaugh calling a group of people whom he did not agree with "F-ing retards." And we did know that Rahm Emanuel, it's been reported, did say that. That's a big difference there."

If Palin is right that Limbaugh did not call "a group of people whom he did not agree with "F-ing retards," the talk show host must really like those liberals. Otherwise, he wouldn't have remarked "But our politically correct society is acting like some giant insult's taken place by calling a bunch of people who are 'retards,' 'retards.'"

A little historical perspective is due here. Once upon a time in America when the term "retarded" was completely acceptable (and in fact considered more appropriate and favorable than "handicapped"), there was a word considered completely offensive. That word was "retard" because a retarded person was not a "retard." There is a difference between bigotry and hostility, the latter displayed by Emanuel. Rush Limbaugh's rant was not only offensive but also bigoted, coming not in a moment of anger but after some reflection. And if Sarah Palin had any integrity, she would have said so.

The Republican Media- No. 22

It's one thing for the promo for the radio program of right-wing Republican host Sean Hannity to play the fear card and proclaim "The radicals have taken over. Hold on to your wallet. Your taxes are ready to go sky high." Hannity makes no claim to objectivity and is entitled to be an ill-informed partisan extremist.

But the "fair and balanced" network? Who would think its newscasters would be biased?

On Sunday's Fox News Sunday, Chris Wallace asked Christina Romer, chairperson of the White House Council of Economic Advisors

And finally, before you came to Washington, you and your husband were experts, leading experts, on business cycles and the recession. You have written that monetary policy alone, what the Fed does in lowering interest rates and pumping money into the economy, is enough to end recessions. You don't need big government spending programs.

And you've also written that tax increases can reduce growth. So my question is, given all of that, what's a nice girl like you doing in the Obama White House?

Sure, tax increases can reduce growth.... which could be why President Obama proposes to reduce, rather than increase, income taxes for the vast majority of Americans. As he promised during the campaign, Obama seeks to cut income taxes for single filers making under $200,000 per year and families earning under $250,000 annually. According to an Associated Press report of an anaysis by Deloitte Tax LLP, a family making $35,000($15,233 below the 1997 median) a year would get a payment of $4,100, an increase of $1,200. And most working couples will receive a tax credit of up to $800 for 2009 and 2010, which the budget proposal would make permanent for families earning up to $195,000 and single filers making up to $95,000.

So unless Wallace was referring solely to individuals pulling down over $200,000 per year (and he was not), what is this about tax increases? Carrying water for the GOP is what it's all about, as well as the classic Repub taunt that Democrats are all about "tax and spend." There is a lot of spending by the Obama White House and Congress to pull us out of a deep recession but the "tax increases," except for the wealthy, are a figment of a deceptive, partisan attack.

The Republican Media- No. 21

This really shouldn't count, inasmuch as it comes, on March 8, from Fox News. But here it is from Chris Wallace, quickly sticking in a false statement at the very end of his interview on Fox News Sunday with Democratic National Committee Chairman Tim Kaine:

Governor, we have to leave it there. I do want to point out, though, just as a — as a point of information, that Rush Limbaugh says — and I think if you read what he says, he wasn't saying I want the president to fail. He was saying I want his policies, his agenda, to fail, and that he disagreed with them and thought they were bad for America. But fair enough.
Thank you so much, Governor, for talking with us. Always a pleasure. Please come back, sir.

So let's review Limbaugh:

January 16, 2009 (on his radio program):

Liberalism is what's gotten us dangerously close to the precipice here. Why do I want more of it? I don't care what the Drive-By story is. I would be honored if the Drive-By Media headlined me all day long: "Limbaugh: I Hope Obama Fails." Somebody's gotta say it....

Why in the world do we want to saddle them with more liberalism and socialism? Why would I want to do that? So I can answer it, four words, "I hope he fails." And that would be the most outrageous thing anybody in this climate could say. Shows you just how far gone we are. Well, I know, I know. I am the last man standing.

***********************************************************************************
January 19, 2009 (on his radio program):

They say everybody wants him to succeed. Why's that? Did everybody want Bush or Clinton or Reagan to succeed? Can somebody go back in American history and tell me when we had a president that everybody wanted to succeed? I'm not even sure every American wanted George Washington to succeed. There are a lot of people that were not quite happy about the way that was all going down....

"Well, everybody wants him to succeed." Well, no.
************************************************************************************
(taped) January 19, 2009 (intervied by Sean Hannity for Fox News Channel)

So I shamelessly say, "No! I want him to fail." If his agenda is a far-left collectivism -- some people say socialism -- as a conservative heartfelt, deeply, why would I want socialism to succeed?
*************************************************************************************
February 13, 2009 (on his radio program):

Of course I want this to fail. Of course I want Obama to fail. And after this stimulus bill package passes, I want it to fail.
*************************************************************************************
"So I can answer it in four words. 'I want him to fail.'"
"'Well, everybody wants him to succeed.' Well, no."
"So, I shamelessly say: 'I want him to fail.'"
"Of course I want Obama to fail."

On at least four occasions, Rush Limbaugh went beyond saying that he thought Obama's policies would fail and/or he wanted them to fail. He said that he wanted President Obama to fail. Even somebody on GOP TV should be able to figure that one out.

An Implied Threat?

Suppose you are a father who has given his son money to go to the movies a couple of times. However, on both occasions he has misled you about the movie he has gone to see and has gotten into trouble. Now, he comes to you for a third time to fund his night out at the movies. But this time you refuse him, citing the problems he has caused your family with his behavior that you have funded.

And so it was that Chris Wallace, arguably the most objective of personalities on GOP TV, yesterday on Fox News Sunday asked of Hillary Clinton a variant of the question war opponents continually face: "But Senator, some of this money as you know goes to protect our troops against mines and IED's. No matter how you feel about the war, how can you vote to cut them off while they're still on the front lines?

Clinton, for her part, gave an excellent response. She began "I think, uh, the best way to protect our troops to to start bringing them home," then noted the body armor "the Bush Administration was not able or not willing to produce in the quantities that were necessary;" the armored vehicles which "needed additional protection in Iraq and they weren't getting it;" and "no-bid contracts and the cronyism" while Mr. Bush "keeps turning a blind eye to the abuses and the contracting process."

But I wonder about the question itself. Just as you expect that your son will not continue going to the movies now that you have denied him funding, why would you expect Mr. Bush to continue the war if he is denied funding? Could it be that the Administration which has denied soldiers superior body armor, as Lisa Myers of NBC reported here, or superior protection against rocket-propelled grenades (apparently the Trophy system, as the Israeli army now uses, according to Myers here) would leave soldiers out in the field unprotected? Could it be that the President who has always fought this war on the cheap, preferring tax cuts for the very wealthy to protection of soldiers and victory in war, would leave our fighting men and women vulnerable to attacks by insurgents bent on murder? I hope not.